Subedar Singh Vs. Satyanarain Singh and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 243-244 of 1999
Petitioner: Subedar Singh
Respondent: Satyanarain Singh and Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 243-244 of 1999
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & S.N. VARIAVA JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 25, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302/34 with Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 3, 45 – Murder – Two accused – Altercation between accused and deceased – Son telling father to teach lesson to deceased – Both going inside and firing shots by two firearms through a window of 1′ x 1′ – No effort by prosecution to establish the wounds by two firearms – Those firearms not recovered – No ballistic expert examined to opine about the range, the number of arms used and number of shots fired at the deceased. Held that there was no ground to interfere in the acquittal recorded by High Court. (Paras 5, 6)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. A father and son were convicted by the trial court for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The High Court, in the appeal filed by them reversed the conviction and acquitted them. Subedar Singh, brother of the deceased Jamuna Rai has filed this appeal by special leave.
2. The incident happened at about 4.00 p.m. on 20.5.1980. There was an altercation which preceded the killing of the deceased Jamuna Rai. It took place at the sehan of the house of the deceased as well as the accused. According to the prosecution version, second accused Rakesh Singh suggested to his father, first accused Satyanarain Singh that deceased should be taught a lesson. Pursuant to that both of them went inside the house and through the hole of a window, they both shot the deceased with two firearms.
3. Out of four eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW2 Kanhaiyaram turned hostile, leaving only three eye-witnesses for the prosecution to rely on. All the three witnesses said that while they were standing in the open, outside the house they saw the act of gun fire made through a small window having a dimension of 1′ x 1′.
4. The High Court felt the difficulty to believe the testimony of the eye-witnesses standing in the open, to definitely pinpoint the assailants who would have shot the fire arm. After considering the broad features of the case, we too felt the same difficulty.
5. That apart, the postmortem report shows that there were pellet wounds on the body of the deceased and some corresponding exit wounds also. No effort was made by the prosecution to point out that these wounds should necessarily have been the result of the two different gun shots. Though it may not be possible to rule out the possibility of the two gun shots being fired, it is equally possible that those injuries could have been caused by one gun shot. A further odd against the prosecution is that the firearms said to have been used, have not been recovered. Yet another difficulty for the prosecution is that no ballistic expert was called to examine the wounds and the pellets and to give his expert opinion as to the range, the number of firearms used
and the number of shots fired at the deceased.
6. In view of the above difficulty for the prosecution, we are not disposed to interfere with the order of acquittal, though it is unfortunate that a person was shot dead by some assailants just in front of his own house.
7. We, therefore, dismiss these appeals.
1. A father and son were convicted by the trial court for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The High Court, in the appeal filed by them reversed the conviction and acquitted them. Subedar Singh, brother of the deceased Jamuna Rai has filed this appeal by special leave.
2. The incident happened at about 4.00 p.m. on 20.5.1980. There was an altercation which preceded the killing of the deceased Jamuna Rai. It took place at the sehan of the house of the deceased as well as the accused. According to the prosecution version, second accused Rakesh Singh suggested to his father, first accused Satyanarain Singh that deceased should be taught a lesson. Pursuant to that both of them went inside the house and through the hole of a window, they both shot the deceased with two firearms.
3. Out of four eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW2 Kanhaiyaram turned hostile, leaving only three eye-witnesses for the prosecution to rely on. All the three witnesses said that while they were standing in the open, outside the house they saw the act of gun fire made through a small window having a dimension of 1′ x 1′.
4. The High Court felt the difficulty to believe the testimony of the eye-witnesses standing in the open, to definitely pinpoint the assailants who would have shot the fire arm. After considering the broad features of the case, we too felt the same difficulty.
5. That apart, the postmortem report shows that there were pellet wounds on the body of the deceased and some corresponding exit wounds also. No effort was made by the prosecution to point out that these wounds should necessarily have been the result of the two different gun shots. Though it may not be possible to rule out the possibility of the two gun shots being fired, it is equally possible that those injuries could have been caused by one gun shot. A further odd against the prosecution is that the firearms said to have been used, have not been recovered. Yet another difficulty for the prosecution is that no ballistic expert was called to examine the wounds and the pellets and to give his expert opinion as to the range, the number of firearms used
and the number of shots fired at the deceased.
6. In view of the above difficulty for the prosecution, we are not disposed to interfere with the order of acquittal, though it is unfortunate that a person was shot dead by some assailants just in front of his own house.
7. We, therefore, dismiss these appeals.
